I have seen what compromise will do for an organization....it will lead to
a gradual erosion of the members rights. The Congressmen and Senators
should be put on the spot. Get with it and uphold our rights...Do not
uphold Federal action, or suffer at the polls. They understand
that.....very well. Remember, NO COMPROMISE. A slow bleeding death is no
better than a swift one. It just hurts more and takes longer. The end
result is the same.
Oh how I remember the duck hunters that said, "Hey..I don't own an
AR15.,..so it doesn't matter if they ban them". Now...they have to deal
with the NICS system and they whine......I tell them...they should have
been on the bandwagon fighting the crime bill. "You don't think the anti
gun crowd will draw the line with your duck gun, do you"? Fight them and
make them pay......
Jon
>
>
>I really hate to keep fanning the fire but...
>
>1) Armoured vehicles never were an issue at Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma and only
used
>at Waco by the "good guys". There was never an association by the media of
>Military vehicles and those incidents. I don't feel the average voter really
>connects owning a WWII Serman tank with Neo-Nazies and Militias.
Especially if
>we keep showing our MVs on Army posts, Veterans perades and other "benign"
>settings.
>
>2) I really think the MVPA is starting off on the wrong foot if, from the
very
>beginning, they are willing to make a distinction of un-gunned soft skins
and
>things like a Sherman or my Bren Carrier.
>
><snip> (from their post)
>"The immediate emphasis must be on maintaining a flow of surplus items
such as
>jeep, Dodge, and GMC parts back into the US. Secondarily, we must work to be
>able to bring back to the US "non-weapon" softskin vehicles such as jeeps,
>trucks, and trailers. Finally, we want to make it possible for the
legitimate
>importation of historic combat vehicles such as armored cars and tanks to be
>accomplished."
><un-snip>
>
>The NRA accepted the "let's cut our losses" stance and cut loose the
military
>style weapons in favor of keeping the shotguns and deer rifles. As one
bumper
>sticker from the time said " the Second Admendment isn't about duck hunting!"
>Still,you don't see Charlton Heston holding an AR-15 in the adds.
>
>My problem is that I COLLECT military arms and also use them in
re-enactments. I
>have a real heartburn with the NRA for throwing my portion of the firearm
hobby
>to the wolves.
>
>Now I see the MVPA about to do the same thing.
>I am afraid of the attitude:"sad to see no more tanks, but, what the
hell....I
>own a jeep."
>
>My God! people, we all are collecting MILITARY vehicles!!! If you want
your jeep
>painted red and with chrome roll bars to be used as a civilian 4wd
plaything,
>you are on a different list. Military involves the use of force and the
vehicles
>used to support that. Often the ultimate MV is a Main Battle Tank. If you
can't
>stomach the idea that our Military vehicles have guns on them or armor
plating,
>go buy the white Imron M-37 and join an off-road club.
>
>I firmly hope the MVPA will lobby JUST AS HARD for tanks as well as Dodge WC
>parts!
>
>Frankly I am not very optimistic when, from their very first post on this
topic,
>they have already put Armored vehicles in last place.
>
>Come on guys! Fight for the whole MV hobby!!
>
>Very sincerly,
>Jim Burrill
>
>
>
>===
>To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
>UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
>
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.